Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2002 (11) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regulation), the Custom House Agent's licence issued to the applicant. The stay application was first heard on 12th August and was adjourned twice to today so that the departmental representative could submit further details. 3. The Commissioner has advanced two reasons for suspension of the licence. The first is that R.G. Gawade, who was customs clerk of the appellant at the relevant time, assaulted an officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, apparently trying to prevent the officer from discharging his official duties and was arrested for this offence. The second is that action has been initiated against the appellant under Regulation 23 for contravention of various regulations. 4. As to the first charge, counse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ace) was at the direction or behest of the appellant or was done in furtherance of his duties as an employee of it. We however do not find that there was sufficient ground for the suspension of the licence. 6. The second reason advanced by the Commissioner relates to some past acts that the appellant has contravened various provisions of the regulation. The departmental representative cites before us a notice issued on 6-11-2001 proposing to hold an enquiry against the appellant under Regulation 23. Six articles of charge have been framed against the appellant, mainly alleging that the appellant accepted commission for allowing its licence to be used by others, the appellant does not lake authorisation from its clients; that it does....